Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Tourism as reflexive reconstructions of colonial

past
Hyung yu Park
Middlesex University, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines ways in which tourism can create a safe area
Received 12 April 2015 where political contestations can be expressed and communicated.
Revised 19 January 2016 Utilising a longer-term ethnographic research, this paper unravels
Accepted 13 March 2016
ways in which local tourists reflexively reconstruct colonial past,
within the context of two royal palaces in South Korea.
Coordinating Editor: Carla Almeida Santos Individual narratives highlight the intricate and complex dynamics
of heritage and nationhood, by way of either confirming or contra-
Keywords: dicting official discourses and nationalist sentiments. Individual
Heritage narratives contribute to challenging the distinction between the
Colonial past official and the unofficial and the ideological and the emotional,
Post-colonial thereby highlighting the ambivalent nature of colonial heritage.
Liminality This paper recognises the liminal and transformative force of
Individual narratives tourism as a drive for oppositional and alternative readings of a
Reflexive reconstruction
shameful past.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Heritage attests to political uses and misuses of the past. In particular, national heritage settings,
epitomised as the fundamental attributes of national identity, mainly represent state-based and
hegemonic understanding of a nations past. Official and hegemonic understanding of heritage is
predicated upon the assumption that heritage encompasses fixed and unchanging values and norms
(see Weiss, 2007). It is argued, however, in this paper that heritage tourism can create a safe area
where political dissent and historical contestation can be expressed and communicated, thereby

Tel.: +44 (0)20 8411 4518; fax: +44 (0)20 8411 6404.
E-mail address: h.park@mdx.ac.uk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.03.001
0160-7383/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 115

recognising the potential of tourism as peace-making activities (see Blanchard & Higgins-Desbiolles,
2013). This challenges the prevalent understanding of heritage and tourism as an effective means in
reinforcing dominant ideological discourses. Critical focus is placed on examining the extent to which
visits to heritage settings provide South Korean nationals with an opportunity to redefine and re-
evaluate their colonial past.
Post-colonial studies have widely discussed the issues of representation and resistance inherent in
colonial relationships (see Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1995). Tourism development in the post-
colonial world has further complicated concern over representation and image of colonial past.
Scholastic investigation has attempted to gain insight into the relationship between colonial experi-
ences and tourism development in postcolonial contexts (Carrigan, 2011; Hall & Tucker, 2004;
Palmer, 1994; Winter, 2007). There exists ongoing conflict between the promotion of colonial past
as a tourism resource and its obliteration as an undesirable past. Memories of colonial past embedded
in certain heritage settings are actively recreated and promoted as colonial nostalgia for tourism
development (see Buckley, 2013), whereas more shameful elements of colonial past are to be forgot-
ten or suppressed (see Chadha, 2006). Postcolonial analysis in tourism has tended to focus on uncov-
ering the ways in which the former colonies of Western/European countries struggle with the issues of
representation, contestation, and identity in tourism development, particularly in representing and
promoting colonial past for touristic consumption (Amoamo & Thompson, 2010; Echtner & Prasad,
2003; Palmer, 1994). Despite some notable exceptions that examine intra-European colonialism
and tourism (Kneafsey, 2000; McGuire, 2012; Pitchford, 1995) and other postcolonial contexts such
as East Asia (Chang & Holt, 1991; Kim & Prideaux, 2012; Oakes, 1998), unequal and exploitative power
relationships between Western colonisers and non-Western colonised still prevail in postcolonial
tourism scholarship. Furthermore, the extant heritage tourism literature has mainly been discussed
from the perspectives of either supply or demand, with specific reference to utilising colonial heritage
for tourism development (Basu, 2008; Sarmento, 2010; Teather & Chow, 2003). Little scholastic inves-
tigation has focused on unravelling the ways in which locals as tourists discursively construct and
articulate their own colonial past. Locals are mainly positioned as passive and victimised hosts whose
subaltern voices are hardly recognised in tourism interaction (see Spivak, 1995). Therefore, this study
attempts to examine how colonial memory and heritage is experienced and reconstructed by local
tourists of South Korea, a former colony of Japan, during visits to the royal palaces in Seoul.
This study is grounded in an interpretivist phenomenological approach with an emphasis on the way
in which individuals make sense of the world as crucial social actors. Human beings as social actors are
both creative mediators and active recipients in the construction of social knowledge (Berger &
Luckmann, 1967). The construction of social world and knowledge cannot thus be completed until indi-
vidual interpretations are added. Both Changdeok and Changgyeong palaces are important heritage set-
tings in which the traces of Japanese colonialism can be experienced. Ethnographic research was
undertaken from 2002 to 2009 in Changdeok palace and in-depth interviews and observations were
further undertaken in both Changdeok and Changgyeong palaces between 2012 and 2014. Longer-
term immersion into the research settings including observations, friendly conversations and interviews
produce rich in-depth accounts concerning the individual perceptions and subjective experiences of
the selected heritage settings. Given that this study aims to reveal a wide array of feelings, impressions
and experiences concerning heritage perceptions and interpretations, the selected procedures and tech-
niques are expected to encourage individuals to express personal opinions in less inhibited ways within
everyday contexts of social interaction. This paper is mainly concerned with elucidating on the ways in
which colonial past can differently be perceived and reconstructed by way of individual engagement and
evaluation during heritage tourism experiences.

Literature review

Colonial heritage and tourism in postcolonial contexts

The relevance and importance of postcolonial studies are increasingly recognised and incorporated
in contemporary understandings of tourism. Tourism studies have popularly discussed the issues of
116 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

hegemony, representation and identity in postcolonial contexts (Amoamo & Thompson, 2010;
dHauteserre, 2011; Hall & Tucker, 2004). Tourism development in former colonies often reinforces
the prejudices and stereotypes of the colonised, which cater to exotic and primitive construction
of other underlying colonial ideology (see Said, 1978). Academic interest in the existing postcolonial
tourism literature has focused on the binary oppositions between core/periphery, hegemony/resis-
tance, modernity/tradition, and First world/Third world. In this vein, tourism is often viewed as per-
petuating the ideology of colonialism, thereby prohibiting local people from defining a national
identity of their own (Palmer, 1994). Much of the discussion has tended to look into the postcolonial
struggles inherent in the former colonies of European countries in Asia, Africa, the West Indies and
Latin America. There has been a critical call for creative, open and discursive processes in postcolonial
studies that disrupt and challenge essentialised and hegemonic postcolonial relationships (see
Ashcroft et al., 1995). Furthermore, Chambers and Buzinde (2015) emphasise the significance of
new tourism knowledge which challenges Western epistemologies prevalent in the tourism academy.
This study thus aims to respond to these calls by way of critically (re)contextualising colonial and
post-colonial relationships from the perspectives of local tourists in South Korea.
Heritage is often a deliberate and manipulative selection and modification of the past to meet gov-
erning political and ideological frameworks. Heritage is political by nature, which is mainly framed by
power/knowledge claims of technical and aesthetic experts, and institutionalized in the state cultural
agencies and amenity societies (Smith, 2006, p. 11), what is termed as authorized heritage discourse.
Here, heritage value is innate and of universal nature, which normalises and reinforces dominant ide-
ologies. Therefore, (re)presentation of heritage often excludes alternative and dissenting positions and
perspectives of individuals, thereby leading inevitably to contestations and conflicts between different
ethnic and religious groups, regions and nations. The Preah Vihear temple, designated as a World Her-
itage site since 2008, has become a cause of serious border conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia
as regards its ownership. The symbolic significance of Angkor Wat for different religions and historical
periods has long been contested and further problematized with the development of tourism.
A recent growth of critical heritage scholarship attempts to unravel the ways in which dominant
understanding of heritage as an entity of authority and hegemony becomes challenged and contested
by critical engagement with heritage (Harrison, 2014; Smith, 2012; Waterton, 2009). In this light, her-
itage can alternatively be made and remade, incorporating subaltern views and multiple perspectives.
Greater emphasis is placed on recognising the complexities and subtleties of values and understandings
of heritage, thereby de-essentialising and disrupting dominant discourses of heritage, memory and
identity. Heritage is better understood as a social and cultural process (Smith, 2006, p. 2), which embod-
ies a constant state of construction and deconstruction of identity and memory. Di Giovine (2009, p. 9)
defines the field of heritage and tourist production as multilayered, global social structures wherein
individuals struggle and negotiate to create, define and promote formative encounters with place.
Nora (1989, p. 8) argues that memory, which is open to the dialectic of remembering and forget-
ting, fundamentally differs from history which is rather incomplete and problematic reconstruction of
the past. Memory is multiple and yet specific; collective, plural and yet individual (Nora, 1989, p. 9).
Sites of memory, lieux de mmoire, are thus instrumental in reviving and mobilising a tradition of
memory in an era inundated with a reconstructed history. Colonial heritage is often perceived as un-
desirable heritage (Macdonald, 2006), ambivalent heritage (Chadha, 2006) and negative heritage
(Meskell, 2002). It is not uncommon that heritage sites are eager to discard colonial history as a
shameful national past while striving to promote their colonial connections as tourism resources
(Sarmento, 2010). The cultural and architectural heritage of a colonial power is suppressed or even
discarded in favour of the cultural legacy of a pre-colonial period that is appropriated for the creation
of new national identities (Harrison, 2005), which is evident in the case of South Korea. Here, it will
be insightful to elucidate how visits to heritage settings as lieux de mmoire can contribute to engaging
and reshaping colonial memory on an individual basis.
It should be noted that the public recognition of a nations shameful past can be beneficial for soci-
eties (Henderson, 2001). It often acts an impetus in encouraging nationals to redefine and fortify their
national identity and cultural integrity throughout generations (see Smith, 1991). Central to this pre-
mise is to recognise colonial past as an essential part of a nations past, rather than being disregarded
and undervalued. Furthermore, the dishonorable memory of being colonised can enhance a sense of
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 117

national awareness and fraternity among nationals, even those who have not directly experienced
colonial past. Drawing upon ways in which Israelis and Palestinians differently view their shared past,
Scham and Yahya (2003) suggest that understanding of heritage in conflicted areas needs to be repo-
sitioned toward a reflexive reconciliation, acknowledging possible manipulative reconstructions and
distortions inherent in each version of the historical narrative. In discussing the ethics of sightseeing,
MacCannell (2011, p. 42) refers to sightseeing as the persons connection, or lack of connection, to nat-
ure, heritage, other human beings, and especially, their own psyches. He further claims that tourists
are ethically compelled to discover ways to relate to their own subjective understanding of an attrac-
tion, thereby enhancing new self-awareness and self-reflexivity. In this paper, focus will be placed on
exploring the productive potential of heritage settings as an ethical space in which tourists are, as
individuals, able to reflect on and rethink the issues of identity, memory and belonging, in particular
relation to a shameful and difficult past.
The notion of liminality has much been debated in the tourism studies (Graburn, 1977; Lett, 1983;
Picard & Di Giovine, 2014; Shields, 1991). Drawing on the similarities between tourism and processes
of ritual, Graburn (1977) conceptualises tourism as a sacred journey through which tourists experi-
ence non-ordinary, sacred and moral state often marked by rituals or ceremonies. Shields (1991, p.
84) defines liminality as a liberation from the regimes of normative practices and performance codes
of mundane life because of its interstitial nature. When immersed in a liminal state, tourists are able
to experience symbolic inversions and reversals, which are hardly actualised in the mundane realms
of life. They can also lead to deep emotional and moral changes in the Self during the contact with the
Other (Picard & Di Giovine, 2014). Encountering the Self and the various forms of Otherness, including
even Others in the Self during tourism experiences can act as a transformative force in developing
new beliefs, attitudes and perspectives in comprehending the self and the world. The discussions sur-
rounding the transformative nature of tourism have mainly been developed within the context of vol-
unteer tourism, particularly within longer international tourism experiences (see Brown, 2013). This
paper aims to uncover the ways in which the liminal qualities of heritage tourism experiences can
open up new opportunities to develop a reflexive and discursive approach to understanding the com-
plexities of past within the context of domestic tourism.

Japan as a significant (national) other in Korean identity and heritage

The role of a significant (national) other is fundamental in constituting and reconstituting collec-
tive national identities, particularly drawing on instances where the out-group is clearly manifested
in the social memory of the in-group (see Pickering, 2001; Said, 1978). The resistance to significant
other could fortify a shared sense of sameness and fraternity with the members of the in-group. Both
Korea and Japan have complicated the historical relations, often claiming the origin of each others
economic, cultural and religious foundations and influences. There exist deep-rooted anti-Japanese
feelings among Korean nationals, historically aggravated by the Hideyoshi Invasions in 1592 and
1597, and more importantly the Japanese Annexation from 1910 to 1945. The desire for national
liberation from Japanese colonialism served as the main stimulant for the birth of nationalism as a
modern political ideology in Korea (The National History Compilation Committee, 2002). A strong
sense of Korean national identity and respect for Korean cultural heritage was developed and
strengthened as a form of repulsion to Japan.
After gaining independence from Japan in 1945 and becoming a new nation in 1953, the state of
South Korea paid substantial attention to the recovery and reconstruction of its cultural and national
status, with the intention of abolishing physical and cultural traces of Japanese occupation. The denial
of Japanese colonialism is clearly encapsulated in concerted attempts to eradicate the traces of Japan
during the post-colonial period in South Korea (see Kim & Prideaux, 2012). Anti-Japanese sentiment is
deeply entrenched as a powerful and tenacious ideology of Korean historiography (Cho, 2012; Kweon,
2003). Various official discourses ranging from textbooks, government documents and media
representations emphasise the historical and political conflicts between the two countries, particu-
larly Koreas suffering during the Japanese occupation.
The National Museum of Korea was housed in the building of the former colonial headquarters
which Japan built within Kyungbok Palace, the main palace of the Joseon Kingdom, with the intention
118 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

of signifying Japans supremacy over Korea. The government decided to demolish this building in 1995
and relocate The National Museum of Korea to its current site. The demolition of the colonial
headquarters, the nations negative heritage (Meskell, 2002), was regarded as an active attempt to
reconstruct Korean national identity and reassert its symbolic sovereignty by extinguishing its colo-
nial relationship with Japan (Callahan, 1999; Chung, 2003; Rozman, 2002). Yet a barrage of criticism
emerged concerning the buildings demolition, emphasising that the colonial headquarters should
have remained as an instructive reminder of the nations colonial experiences (Chung, 2003).
Regardless of ongoing political and diplomatic tensions between Japan and South Korea, cultural
exchange between the two countries has significantly increased since former president Kim, Dae-
jung abolished existing restrictions on importing Japanese cultural material in 1998. The recent
upsurge of the Hallyu phenomenon (the Korean Wave) draws significant attention to Korean culture
across the globe, particularly Asian countries (see Lee, Scott, & Kim, 2008). Japan has become one of
the most impassioned followers of the Korean Wave phenomenon (Choe, 2005). Furthermore, both
governments have actively supported bilateral tourism, with an emphasis on peaceful cooperation
between Japan and Korea over the last several decades (Kim & Prideaux, 2012).
However, a series of ongoing political issues reignited deep-seated feelings of hostility and discom-
fort between the two countries including recent conflicts over the Dok-do islets and the renaming of the
East Sea as the Japanese Sea (Hunter, 2015), Japans new school history textbooks which exclude or
downplay its wartime past (Cave, 2012) and the situation of former comfort women (Yea, 2003). Most
recently, the designation of Sites of Japans Meiji Industrial Revolution in the World Heritage List in July,
2015 once again overshadows the reconciliatory relations of the two countries. Around 58,000 Koreans
were forced to work at seven of these sites including underwater coalmines at Hashima during the colo-
nial period. Despite Japans agreement on more explicit acknowledgement of use of conscripted Korean
labour in the (re)presentation of these sites, their designation provokes intense anti-Japanese feelings
and a heightened upsurge of nationalistic sentiments among Korean nationals (Kirk, 2015).
There exist two major contrasting perspectives on the colonial past in Korean historiography-
exploitation theory and modernisation theory. Exploitation theory emphasises Koreas collective
resistance to the abuses and cruelties of the Japanese Empire, whereas focus in modernisation theory
is placed on considering the economic development through modernisation that occurred in Korea
under Japanese control (Cho, 2012). Official discourses explicitly adopt exploitation theory in repre-
senting the colonial history and criticised modernisation theory for crediting the Japanese occupation
for the process of modernisation in Korea. Cho (2012) draws attention to the reluctance and ambiva-
lence regarding rewriting of colonial history inherent in the official discourses. He calls for a need to
develop more reflexive understanding of the nations colonial past, such as developing a new theoret-
ical perspective and re-evaluating nationalist rhetoric.
Kim and Prideaux (2012) argue that the atrocities of the past have a limited influence on the pre-
sent relationship between Korea and Japan, given a very high level of bilateral tourism flow. This study
is meaningful in recognising tourism as a signifier of reconciliation. However, it seems to be poten-
tially problematic to conclude that the issues of the past are rather outdated and no longer relevant
between the two on the grounds that bilateral tourism flow is increased or sustained. More systematic
examination of how shameful past is remembered and reconfigured through the act of travelling by
South Korean nationals will enhance a more fluid and flexible understanding of colonial heritage in
contemporary society.

Methodological approaches

Research settings

Traces of Japanese control are clearly illustrated in the royal palaces in Seoul dating from Joseon
Kingdom, such as Changdeok and Changgyeong palaces which are the main research settings for this
study. The distortion and destruction of Korean royal palaces during Japanese control is popularly and
politically regarded as an effort to spiritually and symbolically colonize Korean people (Callahan,
1999, p. 331). The layout and architectural features of Changdeok palace were substantially distorted
and disfigured and Changgyeong palace was transformed into a park during Japanese colonial rule.
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 119

Nakseonjae in Changdeok Palace served as the residence for the remaining members of Joseons royal
family under Japanese colonial rule. In the 1970s, a movement to restore Changdeok palace was ini-
tiated and alterations that had been made during the Japanese occupation began to be dismantled. In
the 1990s, the palace was architecturally restored to the period representing the reign of King Sunjo
(18001834). Changgyeong palace mainly served as residential quarters since its establishment in
1483 during the reign of King Seongjong (14691495). The palace was turned into a park with a
zoo and a botanical garden during Japanese colonial rule and its name was also downgraded to Chang-
gyeongwon, which remained a popular tourist attraction until the early 1980s. The South Korean gov-
ernment launched a plan to restore the palace in 1981 and the name was restored to Changgyeong
palace in 1983. Concerted efforts were made in order to obliterate the influences of Japanese colonial-
ism including demolishing the zoo, botanical garden and Japanese style building and replacing Japa-
nese cherry trees with pine and maple trees in the grounds of the palace. Finally, the newly restored
palace was open to the public in 1986.

Longer-term ethnographic research

Social data is increasingly recognised as primarily subjectively-based, arising from the viewpoints
of the researched and the interpretations of the researcher (Thomas, 1993). Engaging with the emo-
tional and subjective perceptions of the researched is of fundamental significance in acquiring multi-
ple narratives and divergent reflections embedded in the social setting and phenomenon. Critical focus
is placed on examining the lived experience of individuals and how individuals make sense of their
experiences as crucial elements of social knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Smith, 2004). This
study employs a range of ethnographic research methods: semi-structured interviews, participant
observations, friendly conversations and the use of field notes. The study combines ethnographic
research conducted between 2002 and 2009 in Changdeok palace (the first stage) and during July
and August between 2012 and 2014 in both Changdeok and Changgyeong palaces (the second stage).
There were several divergent themes which required further investigation from the ethnographic data
gathered during the first stage of this research. It was thus decided that undertaking more in-depth
interviews and observations would significantly enhance and enrich the understanding of individual
perceptions and interpretations of heritage, utilising more composite descriptions of fragments of
many people (Graburn, 2002, p. 24). Longer immersion into specific heritage settings is expected to
illuminate the different and complex layers of meaning immanent in the social data and phenomenon.
Interviews were mainly undertaken in the garden areas and around Nakseonjae in Changdeok
palace and near the main entrance and the pond in Changgyeong palace. During the first stage, tourists
were only allowed to Changdeok palace as part of a guided tour group but individual visits were made
possible around the building area during the second stage. But tourists who wanted to visit the garden
areas still had to be accompanied by tour guides. Tourists were allowed to freely look around Chang-
gyeong palace, both building and garden areas. During both stages of research there was no intention
to collect and analyse the data by the variables such as age, gender and generation given the main
research focus was placed on eliciting and evaluating individual articulations of heritage, in compar-
ison with official representations and interpretations.
Miller and Glassner (2004, p. 125) perceive interview as interaction between the interviewer and
interview subject in which both participants create and construct narrative versions of the social
world. The truth in the social world is partial, incomplete and context-specific. Interviews are
regarded as a dynamic meaning-making process, as Holstein and Gubrium argue, in which focus
needs to be placed on how meaning is constructed, the circumstances of construction, and the mean-
ingful linkages that are assembled for the occasion (2004, p. 145). Therefore, critical focus is placed on
illuminating ways in which the respondents construct their own narratives as a crucial part of social
knowledge by actively engaging with the process of meaning-making in the process of the interview.
Here, the role of the researcher as both a controller and mediator is central in the interview process
(see Turner, 2000). In order to facilitate this meaning-making process, descriptive questions were
used which attempt to ontologically position individuals depictions and articulations of their experi-
ences, further helping to seek emotional-based responses and thought processes. Such questions were
utilised: What are your feelings/views about the traces of Japanese colonialism in the palace?, What
120 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

does national heritage mean to you?, What do you think of the current relations between Japan and
Korea? and Have your views of the palace as national heritage changed during this visit?
Since qualitative research is mainly based on the theoretical and methodological principles of
interpretive science, data analysis does not usually contain such quantitative measurement as the
standardisation of research material or the application of mathematical techniques (Sarantakos,
1998). It is crucial to recognise that qualitative data can be fundamentally partial and discursive, sub-
ject to differing interpretations and diverse analytical processes. Under the tenet of an interpretive
phenomenological approach an appropriate apprehension of the world should entail a reflexive
interplay of human behavior and social situations (Fielding, 1988). Social knowledge or reality is thus
perceived as a constantly shifting and emergent property of individual creation (Bryman, 2012). The
ultimate goal of the analysis is to portray and convey the various manifestations of phenomena rather
than obtaining absolute truth or formulating a tangible reality. Once certain dominant themes were
clarified, the data was then scrutinised for divergent and recurrent themes. Priority was placed on
identifying key narratives, which can provide interpretive, revealing and contextual stances of the
social actors concerned. Emphasis was also placed on conceptually thematising the varying perspec-
tives and divergent viewpoints in relation to the main suppositions developed in the literature review,
as well as identifying interconnected patterns and hidden meanings embedded within the data.

Findings and discussions

Heritage tourism: reinforcing official discourses of colonial past

Japan is conspicuously considered as a significant other in the construction and reconstruction of

Korean national identities (e.g. Cho, 2012; Kweon, 2003). Official material highlights that colonial past
is a largely unappreciated part of the history of the palaces. According to the visitor information mate-
rial of Changdeok palace:
Sadly, the stately royal palace complex fell victim to Japans intentional destruction during the
occupation. . .Following the death of the last Joseon King, Sunjong, Changdeok suffered even more
heavy damage (p. 1). The residence of the queen, Daejojeon was witness to a tragic moment in his-
tory. It was there that the Joseon Kingdom held its last cabinet meeting to deliberate over Japans
annexation of Korea (p. 9).
[Cultural Heritage Administration, 2008, p. 9]

The architectural profile of Changdeok palace was substantially transformed to that of a western-
style building and western-style furniture including beds, tables and chairs were introduced during
Japanese colonialism (see Hong, 2001 and Choi, 2005). It was observed that some tourists appeared
to be quite disappointed and agitated by these representations around Heejeongdang and Daejojeon
and attributed the introduction of western-style architecture, interior design and furniture to Japans
colonial administration, although some of them are not directly related to the period of Japanese occu-
pation. The following comments illustrate such negative feelings:
This is sheer disrespect for our culture and tradition. Our ancestors did not use a bed at all. . . We
Koreans slept on the floor with the Ondol (Korean underfloor heating system). . . Since when has
the bed been regarded as something Korean? I think the Japanese did this.]
[man in his seventies]

I find it very upsetting to see all these scars made in our royal palace. . . Japan brought these changes
in order to damage our national pride. . . why should we keep them here?
[man in his forties]
The above comments illustrate visitors aversion towards certain changes and modifications in the
palaces or modern objects on display which are not perceived to be traditionally Korean. Interestingly,
other tourists also regard palace items that are not typically Korean as being related to Japanese
influence, regardless of the degree to which such concerns are based on factual grounding. For
example:
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 121

When I think all the changes made in the palace were mainly done by Japan, that part is so
upsetting. . . Their (Japans) justification for invading our country is always to assist in our countrys
modernisation. . . this is utter nonsense.
[man in his fifties]
The electric bulbs in Injeong-jeon, the bed in Daejo-jeon and the automobiles in Yochago. . . They
are of foreign origin. They are not ours. . . I feel that all these modern products can spoil the sacred
image of our royal palace. I wanted to enjoy something purely Korean here. . .
[woman in her forties]
Their main arguments implicitly emphasise the significance of Changdeok palace as an essential
representation of national heritage, pertinent in maintaining the perceived uniqueness of Korean
national identity (see Park, 2010). Furthermore, the above comments indicate Changdeoks responsi-
bility for maintaining the nations heritage free from external forces as an essentialist form of cultural
representation, as manifested in official discourses which view heritage as encompassing fixed and
unchanging values and norms (e.g. Weiss, 2007). Here, heritage is viewed as an official and political
medium in representing and enhancing national identity (Lowenthal, 1998; Pretes, 2003), by way of
reinforcing and inculcating state-based nationalism. For example, the Korean National Tourism Organ-
isation (KNTO) describes Changdeok palace as the most purely Korean in their official website and
history textbooks emphasise that Changdeok is the most authentic royal palace. Ironically, the denial
of Japanese influence on South Koreas modernisation could also be understood as another conspicu-
ous manifestation of reaffirming a strong sense of national identity, which denies foreign interference
on the nations historical evolution and drive towards modernisation (e.g., Cho, 2012).
Similarly, official material attributes the downgrading of Changgyeong palace to the zoo and botan-
ical garden during Japanese occupation to Japans colonial intention to dishonour both the Korean
monarchy and Koreas national pride. According to the guidebook of Changgyeong palace:
The palace was a symbol of the Joseon Dynasty, but it lost its supreme status as a royal palace
through planned destruction by the Japanese. In 1907, the Japanese began removing most of
the palace structures and built a zoo and botanical garden in the palace. . . The Korean government
removed the zoo in 1983 and is slowly restoring the palace to its original state.
[Cultural Heritage Administration, 2011]
Most of the tourists interviewed at Changgyeong palace bring to the fore Changgyeongs conversion
into a zoo and botanical garden during the Japanese occupation, including the younger generations.
Some tourists clearly show natural rejection in confronting or accepting memories of national shame:
How can they build the zoo in our royal palace? That is a complete disgrace.
[woman in her sixties]
This is sheer disrespect for our nation. . . this is a very sad history of ours.
[woman in her twenties]
Showing aversion to the colonial past encountered during the visit is regarded as a crucial factor in
defining Korean national identity and solidarity. The following comment by one tourist aptly clarifies
this point:
It does not matter where you live at present, whether it is Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, or even
little villages in Africa. If you identify yourselves as Korean, it means you share the same memories
of the past. Only Koreans would feel ashamed of the remnants of Japan here. . . These feelings
towards Japan show how strong our identity is.
[man in his late twenties]
This point is also addressed during a friendly conversation with an elderly male tourist:
Man: I dont know how old you are, but did you ever go to Changgyeongwon when you were young?
Researcher: Yes, I did. The visit was always the highlight of the trip to Seoul. I was not really aware
of the whole story. . . It was quite shocking when I learnt what had really happened.
Man: Thats because you are a Korean. . .
122 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

Some tourists, who directly experienced Japans occupation of Korea, more eagerly express nega-
tive feelings and concerns toward the traces of colonial past encountered during their visits. The lived
colonial experiences of the older generations play a defining role in perceiving these heritage settings
as a material signifier of colonial oppression:
It was an attempt not just to colonise but to Japanise Korea. They tried to eliminate everything Kor-
ean. . . The worst thing, I reckon, was that we had to take Japanese names, which was absolutely
humiliating
[woman in her late seventies]

I can still vividly remember how frightened I was whenever I bumped into the Japanese policemen
on my way back from school. . . There were then so many horrible rumours going around in the vil-
lage how cruel and inhumane the Japanese policemen were. . .
[man in his seventies]
Here, colonial past is clearly viewed as undesirable heritage (Macdonald, 2006) and negative her-
itage (Meskell, 2002). Buildings, artefacts and landscapes perceived to be affected by Japanese colonial-
ism serve as a reminder of Koreas national humiliation, even among younger generations who never
directly experienced Japanese occupation. Importantly, it is not just physical distortion of the palaces
but the downgrading of its symbolic significance as national heritage that facilities negative emotional
reactions towards Japanese colonialism. The findings support the view of Walsh (1992) and Pretes
(2003) which emphaises the role of heritage in maintaining and fortifying a sense of national belonging
and solidarity. Colonial past encountered during the visit is essential in enabling South Korean nationals
to feel for their nation and to re-imagine their national identity in its purist forms (Connor, 1993). Colo-
nial heritage, as a physical and psychological reminder of the nations shameful past, encourages tourists
to realise and reaffirm their emotional attachment to the nation by actively demarcating the distinction
between us (Korea) and them (Japan). During this process, the heritage settings further play a critical
function in restructuring the Korean nation beyond the boundaries of the South Korean state, especially
as some narratives point to the symbolic significance of the shared memories of Japanese colonial rule,
collectively endured by Korean nationals (see Park, 2011).

Heritage tourism: individual and reflexive reconstruction of colonial past

Contrary to the understanding of colonial heritage as being shameful and undesirable, one set of
ethnographic narratives concedes that the introduction of modern artefacts should be understood
as a natural process of historical evolution and a timely acceptance of foreign civilisation and modern
advancement which is not directly related to the Japanese colonialism. As regards the tour guides
explanation in Heejeongdang that Western-style furniture was introduced during the Japanese occu-
pation, some tourists asked for further clarification such as which year they were actually introduced
or if it was really related to Japans occupation. One tourist eagerly expresses her view on a need to
verify the factual grounding of these official interpretations:
It is not really clear if Japan made these changes or these changes just took place during its occu-
pation in any information material. That is not the same thing, isnt it?

It is also observed that the differing views on these changes led to some interesting discussions
between two female tourists:
Woman 1: I do not think these (changes) are all that bad.
Woman 2: Well. . . this is what Japan did to us.
Woman 1: You cannot blame everything on Japan. At least these are positive changes. I quite like to
see the modern influences here, which shows that this is not just an old and lifeless place.

Interestingly, the following narratives illustrate the alternative positions, implying that the use of
modern products at the palace is not necessarily a negative influence from colonial rule. They further chal-
lenge the essentialist understanding of Korean national culture and heritage, arguing that culture and her-
itage are also representative of ongoing social change and transformation (see Lie, 1990 and Tak, 2000):
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 123

Although these items are of foreign origin, they are also meaningful in that they show how things
have changed over time. . . We should not just blame Japan for everything.
[woman in his fifties]
Some people think that modern products like automobiles and electric bulbs are traces from Japa-
nese occupation. But I do not agree with it. If we werent under Japans control, would we still use
the gama (traditional Korean wagon) and chorongbul (traditional lighting)?
[man in his early thirties]
It is not desirable to dispute all things just because they are not of Korean origin. . . What means to
be Korean changes with time.
[woman in her forties]
The following narratives also draw attention to the alternative readings of colonial heritage expe-
rienced during the visits to Changgyeong palace. Interestingly, tourists demonstrate varying perspec-
tives regarding the restoration of the palace. Compared to official material which praises a complete
restoration of the palace to the period of pre-Japanese occupation as an embodiment of national pride,
tourists perceive and interpret the physical and emotional realities experienced at the palace in rather
different ways:
Ironically, I still remember this place as Changgyeongwon as a park and zoo. . . It is a sad history but
it is something that should not be hidden.
[man in his fifties]
Sometimes knowing the pain makes us appreciate our nation and more. . . We cannot change the
fact that it (Japanese colonialism) happened but it is gone long ago.
[woman in her twenties]
I am not sure if it was a right decision to completely restore the palace. . . I do not suggest we should
keep it as a zoo but we are too occupied with removing that part of our history.
[man in his forties]
These individual narratives reflect contradictory viewpoints and ambivalent feelings concerning
colonial heritage (Chadha, 2006), thereby challenging the official discourses with a more or less uni-
fied version of national identity and memory. Some tourists express more positive viewpoints regard-
ing their shameful past, particularly in terms of how such influences can constructively help South
Korean nationals rethink their national identities and colonial past (e.g. Henderson, 2001; Teather &
Chow, 2003). Here, the voices of locals are subject to counter-narratives of state-based nationalism
and nationalist sentiments. Some old tourists interviewed in Nakseonjae of Changdeok also show
alternative and reflexive reading of colonial heritage:
It was a dark period of our history. . . we should not forget what happened but it is not desirable to
continue to dispute over it. . . we are now strong and powerful and we must learn how to forgive
Japan.
[woman in her seventies]
I feel sad to think that our royal family had to be kept here and all the horrible things they did to
us. . . but maybe that suffering made us stronger and what we are now. In that way is this some-
thing we should feel proud of?
[man in his seventies]
Obviously, there exists a clear aversion to colonial memory among the older generations who directly
experienced Japanese colonialism, as illustrated in the previous section. However, it is interesting to rea-
lise that some tourists are able to, regardless of their generation, construct the reflexive understanding of
colonial past, which does not necessarily consolidate an authoritative and official version of history, the
nations moral geography (Smith, 1991, p. 16). Findings suggest that tourism experiences of colonial
heritage do not just represent ideological rhetoric of nationalism which is prevalent in the official dis-
courses. It is critical to note that some tourists challenge overtly nationalistic and monolithic approaches
to the colonial past inherent in the academy, media and politics in South Korea (e.g. Cho, 2012). Here, the
124 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

notion of both national identity and heritage becomes inextricably multifaceted, complex and plural
(Hall, 1992). Furthermore, the actual visit proves to be an opportunity to think of their own perspectives
and positions regarding the colonial past, which does not really happen in other domains of life. The lim-
inal and transformative qualities of tourism are thus emphasised as a drive for these new and alternative
readings of past. Findings bring attention to tourism as a safe area in which political dissent and histor-
ical contestation can be expressed and communicated:
When you read newspapers or watch the news, you cannot help but hate Japan. If you make any
favorable comments regarding Japan in on-line portals you are accused of being pro-
Japanese. . . But that hatred is not that intense here. . . I feel comfortable to say things I want.
[man in his forties]

I think the general people do not have any problems with each other but the politics make things
complex. . . This place teaches you a lesson but not in too imposing ways.
[man in his sixties]
Experiencing the sad history of the palace makes me value my nation. But time has changed. When
you read a historical textbook you feel forced to believe it but you naturally feel it here.
[woman in her twenties]
Here, social benefits of heritage and peace-making potentials of tourism are emphasised. Heritage
tourism experiences serve as a liminal and ethical force which perpetuates individuals opportunities
for enhancing new self-awareness and self-reflexivity (Graburn, 1977; MacCannell, 2011; Picard & Di
Giovine, 2014). The ideological (official) and the emotive (unofficial) dimensions of heritage are con-
tinuously dissolved and reconstructed in individual tourism experiences of colonial past. Therefore, it
is conflicting viewpoints and differing experiences of tourists regarding national memory and heritage
that further enrich the process of embodying a sense of national belonging during tourism
experiences.
Recent social and cultural exchanges between the two countries are regarded as a positive change
and the sense of national confidence as a reaction to the Korean Wave phenomenon is heightened.
Several narratives express positive feelings concerning the recent reconciliatory mood of social and
cultural exchange, focusing on possibilities to readdress past animosities:
We now live in a different time. Japanese people are the biggest fan of Korean Wave. I feel proud
that they now value our culture. . . I think it is Koreas turn at the moment.
[woman in her thirties]

They are crazy about our drama and films and we like their games and cartoons. . . we now live in
the 21st century.
[woman in her forties]
However, when asked regarding the conflict concerning the ownership of the Dok-do islets and the
alleged distortion of Japanese history textbooks, deep-rooted distrust and national disappointment re-
emerged. Some tourists show a heightened sense of disappointment and infuriation:
We are like oil and water, they may stay in the same bottle but it will never mix up. The issues over
Dok-do and the textbooks will be always there. . . Remaining together in the same bottle is then an
impossible task. It turns to a very dangerous mixture when fire is around.
[man in his forties]

But surprisingly, some tourists raise a concern for reigniting conflicts and tensions between the two
countries:
Hope things will be solved in a mature manner. We cannot go back to old hatred.
[man in his sixties]

Japan will need to take more responsibility for accepting what they did in the past. We also need to
stop being overtly nationalistic.
[woman in her forties]
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 125

The varying responses to colonial past are especially interesting and meaningful given predomi-
nant political and public resistance to the colonial legacy in South Korea (Cho, 2012; Kweon, 2003).
In this light, these narratives reinforce Smiths (2006) view that heritage as a cultural and social pro-
cess which needs to be re-evaluated by cultural changes and social practices. It is revealed that her-
itage tourism experiences enable South Korean nationals to consider oppositional and alternative
readings and to develop discursive and reflexive understandings of colonial past, thereby bridging a
gap between the official discourses and the unofficial narratives of heritage (see Harrison, 2014;
Smith, 2012). Tourists do not just passively consume colonial heritage within the ideology of nation-
alism. They either confirm or challenge the dominant national and historical narratives of colonial past
at a more personal and engaging level. This study recognises tourism as one effective medium which
help to reflexively reconstruct and reconcile the colonial past, reinforcing the point raised by Scham
and Yahya (2003). It also emphasises the potential of tourism as a social force to develop ideas of
achieving dialogue for peace (Blanchard & Higgins-Desbiolles, 2013). Furthermore, individual narra-
tives of heritage tourism experiences contribute to challenging the distinction between the official
and the unofficial, the ideological and the emotional and the concrete and the abstract, thereby high-
lighting the ambivalent nature of colonial heritage.

Conclusion

Official and hegemonic discourses of the colonial past represent the palaces as an important mate-
rial relic of Japanese colonialism, which serves as a central medium in maintaining and enhancing
national identity and nationalist sentiments. Visits to the heritage settings encourage South Korean
nationals to reconsider and reconfigure their sense of national belonging and solidarity. Social
memories of Japanese colonialism encountered during heritage tourism experiences serve the purpose
of reaffirming the affliction that this significant other posed on (South) Korean national identities,
illustrated by way of remembering past ordeals faced by the Korean nation collectively, and
anti-Japanism as one of the most powerful ideologies in Korean historiography. In this light, heritage
tourism experiences confirm a strong sense of national belonging grounded in cultural essentialism
and nationalist sentiments. Visits to the palaces unmistakably remind local tourists of Japans role
as a national enemy inherent in the state-led production and propagation of the colonial past.
However, this study critically reassesses the ideologically and politically charged historiography of
Koreas colonial past from the perspective of local tourists. Unofficial and individual perceptions and
interpretations of the past highlight the intricate and complex dynamics of heritage in the process of
national (re)identification. The process of rethinking the colonial legacy illustrated in various individ-
ual narratives differs in relation to ways in which the past should be represented, whether in terms of
positively accepting the past or in terms of limiting representations of Japan. Individual narratives of
the past contribute to the understanding of heritage as social knowledge and cultural process, which
can constantly be repositioned and reinterpreted over time and in different contexts.
Heritage tourism experiences at both palaces prove to encourage local tourists to reflexively recon-
struct colonial past and national belonging. Tourists do not unproblematically draw upon the official
interpretations of colonial heritage. Instead, they are active in contesting and negotiating social mem-
ory embedded in the heritage settings. In comparison to official discourses which strongly promote a
nationalist version of colonial past, the distinctions between ideological and emotive dimensions of
heritage in individual narratives of tourism experiences are less palpable. The varying responses to
colonial heritage are especially interesting and meaningful given strong political resistance to the
colonial past in South Korea. Findings suggest that colonial heritage serves as, for some tourists, a
political entity which inculcates the ideology of nationalism, while, for others, encouraging its reflex-
ive reconstruction in personal and engaging ways. Tourism creates a safe area in which oppositional,
flexible and alternative readings of national memory and belonging are facilitated. The liminal
qualities of heritage tourism encourage tourists to reflexively reconstruct their nations shameful past,
which is often not easy to be achieved in other domains or experiences of everyday life. The meaning
and significance of colonial heritage in contemporary context is enhanced by recognising the role of
local tourists as an active agent in facilitating more nuanced understanding of colonial heritage.
126 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127

Within the context of this paper, colonial heritage settings serve as an organic and discursive prac-
tice through which tourists experience ambivalent, processual and reflexive nature of colonial and
post-colonial relations, rather than just reinforcing fixed and unchanging values and norms, such as
anti-Japanism, patriotism and nationalist sentiments. Some tourists actively engage with the pro-
cesses of challenging and repositioning the colonial past. This studys main contribution lies in recog-
nising the role of colonial heritage in enabling local tourists to challenge and contradict the dominant
official discourses and nationalist sentiments. In future studies, it will be interesting to examine ways
in which Japanese tourists interact with the colonial past and respond to their own nations represen-
tation within these heritage settings. It will also be insightful to investigate what aspects of tourism
experience actually facilitate individual and reflexive reconstruction of shameful past and undesirable
heritage in postcolonial contexts. Finally, there should be more studies in post-colonial tourism anal-
ysis which incorporate new tourism knowledge and experiences from local perspectives in different
geo-political contexts.

References

Amoamo, M., & Thompson, A. (2010). (re)Imaging Maori tourism: Representation and cultural hybridity in postcolonial New
Zealand. Tourist Studies, 10(1), 3555.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (Eds.). (1995). The post-colonial studies reader. London: Routledge.
Basu, P. (2008). Confronting the past?: Negotiating a heritage of conflict in Sierra Leone. Journal of Material Culture, 13(2),
233247.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality.New York: Anchor Books.
Blanchard, L., & Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (Eds.). (2013). Peace through tourism: Promoting human security through international
citizenship. Oxon: Routledge.
Brown, L. (2013). Tourism: A catalyst for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 176190.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.)Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buckley, R. (2013). Material culture of post-colonial wildlife tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 225228.
Callahan, W. A. (1999). Negotiating cultural boundaries: Confucianism and trans/national identity in Korea. Cultural Values, 3(3),
329364.
Carrigan, A. (2011). Postcolonial tourism: Literature, culture and environment.London: Routledge.
Cave, P. (2012). Japanese colonialism and the Asia-Pacific War in Japans history textbooks: Changing representations and their
causes. Modern Asian Studies, 47(2), 542580.
Chadha, A. (2006). Ambivalent heritage: Between affect and ideology in a colonial cemetery. Journal of Material Culture, 11(3),
339363.
Chambers, D., & Buzinde, C. (2015). Tourism and decolonisation: Locating research and self. Annals of Tourism Research, 51(1),
116.
Chang, H. C., & Holt, G. R. (1991). Tourism as consciousness of struggle: Cultural representations of Taiwan. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, 8(1), 102118.
Cho, Y. H. (2012). Colonial modernity matters? Cultural Studies, 26(5), 645669.
Choe, Y. S. (2005). Marketing Korean pop culture. Korea Herald. August 31.
Choi, J. D. (2005). Changdeokgung 600 (14052005).Daejeon: CHA.
Chung, Y. S. (2003). Object as exhibit: Legitimising the building of the National Museum of Korea. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 9(3), 229242.
Connor, W. (1993). Beyond reason: The nature of the ethnonational bond. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 16(3), 373389.
Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea (2008). Changdeokgung.Daejeon: CHA.
Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea (2011). Changgyeonggung.Daejeon: CHA.
d Hauteserre, A-M. (2011). Politics of imagining New Caledonia. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 380402.
Di Giovine, M. A. (2009). The Heritage-scape: UNESCO, world heritage, and tourism.Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Echtner, C. M., & Prasad, P. (2003). The context of third world tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 660682.
Fielding, N. G. (Ed.). (1988). Actions and structure: Research methods and social theory. London: Sage.
Graburn, N. H. H. (2002). The ethnographic tourist. In G. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as a metaphor of the social world (pp. 1940).
Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Graburn, N. H. H. (1977). Tourism: The sacred journey. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism
(pp. 1732). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, & T. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures (pp. 273326).
London: Polity Press.
Hall, C. M., & Tucker, H. (Eds.). (2004). Tourism and postcolonialism: Contested discourses, identities and representations. London:
Routledge.
Harrison, R. (2014). Heritage: Critical approaches.London: Routledge.
Harrison, D. (2005). Introduction: Contested narratives in the domain of World Heritage. In D. Harrison & M. Hitchcock (Eds.),
The politics of World Heritage: Negotiating tourism and conservation (pp. 110). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Henderson, J. (2001). Heritage, identity and tourism in Hong Kong. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(3), 219235.
Hong, S. M. (2001). Changdeok Palace.Daejeon: Cultural Properties Administration.
Hunter, W. C. (2015). The visual representation of border tourism: Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and Dokdo in South Korea.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(2), 151160.
 H.yu Park / Annals of Tourism Research 58 (2016) 114127 127

Kim, S., & Prideaux, B. (2012). A post-colonial analysis of bilateral tourism flows: The case of Korea and Japan. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 14(6), 586600.
Kirk, D. (2015). Japan, Korea Breakthrough: Japanese repenting forced Korean labor on UNESCO heritage sites. Forbes, 6. 6 Jul.
Kneafsey, M. (2000). Tourism, place identities and social relations in the European rural periphery. European Urban and Regional
Studies, 7(1), 3550.
Kweon, S. I. (2003). Popular discourses on Korean culture: From the late 1980s to the present. Korea Journal, 43(1), 3257.
Lee, S. J., Scott, D., & Kim, H. G. (2008). Celebrity fan involvement and destination perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3),
809832.
Lie, J. (1990). South Korean development: The elusive reality of conflicts and contradictions. Pacific Affairs, 63(3), 367372.
Lett, J. (1983). Ludic and liminoid aspects of charter yacht tourism in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(1), 3556.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacCannell, D. (2011). The ethics of sightseeing.California: University of California Press.
Macdonald, S. (2006). Undesirable heritage: Fascist material culture and historical consciousness in Nuremberg. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(1), 928.
McGuire, V. (2012). Arcadian histories: Italian encounters in the Eastern Mediterranean. In G. Parati (Ed.), New perspectives in
Italian cultural studies (pp. 231258). Plymouth: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Meskell, L. (2002). Negative heritage and past mastering in archaeology. Anthropological Quarterly, 75(3), 557574.
Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (2004). The inside and the outside: Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative
research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 125139). London: Sage.
Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de memoire. Representations, 26, 724.
Oakes, T. (1998). Tourism and modernity in China.London: Routledge.
Palmer, C. A. (1994). Tourism and colonialism: The experience of the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 792811.
Park, H. Y. (2010). Heritage tourism: Emotional journeys into nationhood. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 116135.
Park, H. Y. (2011). Shared national memory as intangible heritage: Re-imaging two Koreas as one nation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 38(2), 520539.
Picard, D., & Di Giovine, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Tourism and the power of otherness: Seductions of difference. Bristol: Channel View
Publications.
Pickering, M. (2001). Stereotyping: The politics of representation.Hampshire: Palgrave.
Pitchford, S. R. (1995). Ethnic tourism and nationalism in Wales. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 3552.
Pretes, M. (2003). Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 125142.
Rozman, G. (2002). Japan and Korea: Should the US be worried about their new spat in 2001? The Pacific Review, 15(1), 128.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the Orient.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research.England: Macmillan.
Sarmento, J. (2010). Fort Jesus: Guiding the past and contesting the present in Kenya. Tourism Geographies, 12(2), 246263.
Scham, S. A., & Yahya, A. (2003). Heritage and reconciliation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 3(3), 399416.
Shields, R. (1991). Places on the Margin: Alternative geographies of modernity.London: Routledge.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity.London: Penguin.
Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to
qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 3954.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage.Oxon: Routledge.
Smith, L. (2012). Editorial. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(6), 533540.
Spivak, G. C. (1995). Can the subaltern speak? In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, & H. Tiffin (Eds.), The post-colonial studies reader
(pp. 2428). London: Routledge.
Tak, S. S. (2000). The identity of Korea.Seoul: Bookworld.
Teather, E. K., & Chow, C. S. (2003). Identity and place: The testament of designated heritage in Hong Kong. International Journal
of Heritage Studies, 9(2), 93115.
The National History Compilation Committee (2002). Korean history for high school students.Seoul: Gyohaksa.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography: Qualitative research methods.London: Newbery Award Records.
Turner, A. (2000). Embodied ethnography: Doing culture. Social Anthropology, 8(1), 5160.
Walsh, K. (1992). The representation of the past: Museums and heritage in the postmodern world.London: Routledge.
Waterton, E. (2009). Sights of sites: Picturing heritage, power and exclusion. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4(1), 3756.
Weiss, L. (2007). Heritage-making and political identity. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(3), 413431.
Winter, T. (2007). Post-colonial heritage, post-colonial tourism: Culture, politics and development at Angkor.London and New York:
Routledge.
Yea, S. (2003). Former comfort women as touristic objects in South Korea. In T. G. Bauer & B. McKercher (Eds.), Sex and tourism:
Journeys of romance, love, and lust (pp. 139154). New York: The Haworth Press.